9 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Not unless they write it into the rules, there isn't. I don't care which way it goes, but I will take the actual rules over conversation pieces every time.

I'm not saying this rule is definitive, I know I can't do that, just trying to help lead this thread in the right direction. I was told by developers this is how it works, so before everyone dives deep into the weeds on their interpretations of how they think it could possibly work, it would be good advice to follow up on how the developers say it works. This entire thread is based on theories as if the 'game state must change' rule doesn't exist. I'm simply going by what I was told by the devs, so I have a "feeling" that all these theories don't matter. It's worth consideration.

8 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

This entire thread is based on theories as if the 'game state must change' rule doesn't exist.

That's because it doesn't.

13 minutes ago, Khift said:

That's because it doesn't.

It just might. It existed at Gen Con. Not sure why there is so much resistance to considering looking into that game state must change.

29 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

It just might. It existed at Gen Con. Not sure why there is so much resistance to considering looking into that game state must change.

There were plenty of erroneous judge calls at GenCon. I know two people who lost games at the Kiku Matsuri because a judge made an incorrect ruling. Judges and devs are only human. "Must change the game state" is a shorthand which is correct 99.99% of the time, but in this specific circumstance is not. The game has about five rules, by my count, that all try to make "must change the game state" happen, and in the vast majority of the circumstances they succeed, but with Shameful Display because of how it is worded it manages to thread that gauntlet and come out still legal.

You've had this entire thread to provide a citation for the rule existing and you have not yet managed to do so. It's pretty tiresome to continue to hear you cite something that doesn't exist in a thread actually talking about rules.

3 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

Though your logic is sound, there's actually a requirement to change the game state, as specifically discussed for Shameful Display by developers at Gen Con. I don't think an interpretation with the RR as it is now will accomplish much at this point.

If that is the intent here, then the rulebook does need clarifying. Just a minor update on the "Effects" portion on page 6 should clear this up. It's an extremely minor issue (how many people want to take an action that does nothing?), but it could make things clearer going forwards.

56 minutes ago, Casanunda said:

If that is the intent here, then the rulebook does need clarifying. Just a minor update on the "Effects" portion on page 6 should clear this up. It's an extremely minor issue (how many people want to take an action that does nothing?), but it could make things clearer going forwards.

Its a holdover from other games such as ANR where abilities didn't have limits, and if I'm not mistaken it was originally introduced to deal with a problem with a card, as its cost was being used to generate an advantage.

Honestly if they kept their design tight, they could remove the rule from L5R without problems.

1 hour ago, player2636234 said:

Its a holdover from other games such as ANR where abilities didn't have limits, and if I'm not mistaken it was originally introduced to deal with a problem with a card, as its cost was being used to generate an advantage.

It was actually due to a problematic card from Thrones 1.0, as I recall. But, yes, after that experience basically derailed an entire tournament season, they've included that prohibition in all their games ever since.

The prohibition against actions without effect also forces players to pass when they do not want to modify the game state, which is important in a game where action opportunities go back and forth (which covers pretty much every competitive LCG except ANR).

Just received this

You must resolve as much of the effect as you can. As long as it does something, then it is resolved. You can't choose to make it fizzle. You can paint it into a corner by choosing an honored and ordinary character, or dishonored and ordinary character, and applying the effect to the ordinary character such that the aspect to honor / dishonor does not resolve on the honored / dishonored character - but you have to start with the aspect to either honor or dishonored and must resolve the effect if possible first. You can't just elect to have it fizzle when there is a way to do it so that it resolves.

I still haven't seen the other email from Nate French. I suspected earlier that he was answering specifically to the honored + ordinary combination and it appears I was right.

"Because I said so" (c) Nate

oh well =_=

P.S. The original question can be found here .

Just now, mplain said:

"Because I said so" (c) Nate

oh well =_=

I don't think it's "because I said so." I explained my interpretation that Effects bullet 2 indicates that even though it does not say "choose" you still must resolve each aspect of the effect if possible.. You can paint yourself into a corner and say "I dishonored this ordinary character, now the only target left is honored so I can't honor him oh well" and let that aspect fail to resolve, but you can't simply say you honored the honored, and dishonored the dishonored because that isn't resolving anything.

This is consistent with my experience with other games, and the impression I received reading over the RR. I expect similar cards in the future cards to be ruled in a similar manner.

Thank you for linking the original ruling - what is funny is that the original ruling says exactly what I supposed it said through this entire thread.

Quote

This “resolve as much as you are able” rule basically means that you cannot optionally pick and choose which parts of an effect resolve.
So, you could choose to dishonor the ordinary character, and let the honor effect fail to resolve in your example. Once these choices are made, you resolve as much of the effect as you are able.
If you had one honored and one dishonored character, you would have to choose in such a way that the resolution of the ability changes the game state. (i.e., you couldn’t choose to both honor the honored and dishonor the dishonored, as then the effect would have no potential to change the game state) (Nate French, 14/8/17).

Too bad no one linked the original post about it, would have saved a lot of back and forth in this thread lol

I don't see how Nate's words prove your interpretation.

Quote

This “resolve as much as you are able” rule basically means that you cannot optionally pick and choose which parts of an effect resolve.

Nate is saying here that you cannot opt not to resolve some part of the effect.

Nate is NOT saying here that you must resolve the effect in a manner that would change the game state.

Opting to honor the honored character and dishonor the dishonored one does is not choosing not to resolve a part of the effect.

8 hours ago, mplain said:

I don't see how Nate's words prove your interpretation.

Nate is saying here that you cannot opt not to resolve some part of the effect. Nate is NOT saying here that you must resolve the effect in a manner that would change the game state.

Opting to honor the honored character and dishonor the dishonored one does is not choosing not to resolve a part of the effect.

It quite certainly is. I think you could easily judge whether something resolved or not by comparing the game state prior and post. If nothing has changed, then you can't say any effect has resolved, rather that indicates it failed to resolve.

So when the effect says "honor 1 character and dishonor the other" and we must resolve this, it is not a may - then we must have this change the game state in some way if possible. Whether that is honoring and dishonoring, or honoring + fizzle, or dishoring + fizzle the game state is changed thus we can say we have resolved it. If we honor an honored, and dishonor a dishonored the game state has not changed, thus we cannot say the effect has resolved.

2 minutes ago, shosuko said:

It quite certainly is. I think you could easily judge whether something resolved or not by comparing the game state prier and post. If nothing has changed, then you can't say any effect has resolved, rather that indicates it failed to resolve.

So when the effect says "honor 1 character and dishonor the other" and we must resolve this, it is not a may - then we must have this change the game state in some way if possible. Whether that is honoring and dishonoring, or honoring + fizzle, or dishoring + fizzle the game state is changed thus we can say we have resolved it. If we honor an honored, and dishonor a dishonored the game state has not changed, thus we cannot say the effect has resolved.

Once you look at Nate's original response it becomes very clear how he interprets the "resolve as much as you are able" line:

Quote

This “resolve as much as you are able” rule basically means that you cannot optionally pick and choose which parts of an effect resolve.

So, you could choose to dishonor the ordinary character, and let the honor effect fail to resolve in your example. Once these choices are made, you resolve as much of the effect as you are able.

You cannot optionally pick and choose which parts of an effect resolve. Nothing to do with decisions, nothing to do with pre and post effect game state, just you can't arbitrarily stop reading card text halfway through an effect.

I will admit that I am rather annoyed that you would send that question in without even bothering to make the argument which has been presented and then act like it solves anything. We already knew how Nate thinks the game works; the whole point of the argument is that in this very specific circumstance that doesn't actually matter he appears to be incorrect. I didn't want to waste the dev's time with this because, again, it does not actually matter, but if we're going to turn this into a pissing match then so be it.

1 minute ago, Khift said:

I will admit that I am rather annoyed that you would send that question in without even bothering to make the argument which has been presented and then act like it solves anything. We already knew how Nate thinks the game works; the whole point of the argument is that in this very specific circumstance that doesn't actually matter he appears to be incorrect. I didn't want to waste the dev's time with this because, again, it does not actually matter, but if we're going to turn this into a pissing match then so be it.

Bro - don't get heated. This isn't a pissing match, and while you see my argument as weak, I think that may be because you are making this personal when it doesn't have to be. I don't care if Shameful Display is ruled one way or another - I am genuinely intrigued by the arguments presented here and no one posted the original ruling even though I pointed that out multiple times. Eventually I decided, since no more progress was being made here, I would send in an rules request form to find out.

I'm not sure why you don't believe my interpretation of the rules. There can be meaningful debate challenging ideas and refining arguments, and then there is simply refuting solid theory because it isn't the one you like. If Nate had said "Yes you can honor an honored character and dishonor a dishonored character with this effect" I would have accepted that, and adjusted my logical understanding of the game to suit.

I think what this ruling, and this debate crystallized is how the "game state must be changed" rule is written into the L5R LCG RR. It is not a clear ruling that an effect must change the game state but broken into roughly 2 parts. 1) an effect cannot be initiated unless it has the potential to effect the game state, and 2) that you must resolve each aspect of an effect if possible.

As it stands the final argument referencing the RR and the Card is:

We must choose 2 targets that can be either honored or dishonored.

We must simultaneously honor one of them, and dishonor the other.

There is no "may" so this effect must be resolved if possible, so you must pick an option which qualifies as "resolve" ie changed the game state. You can honor + dishonor, honor + fizz, dishonor + fizz, because these all change the game state. You cannot fizz + fizz unless no other option is available because this does not change the game state.

Quote

The selection of characters must be made so that at least one of the target characters changes state. - Nate French

Thanks @shosuko for bringing this to a close. It's good to see they've stuck by their previous tournament ruling on this topic. Simply put, there's a requirement to change the game state to be considered an eligible target, and there's a requirement to change the game state when carrying out the effect.

17 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Bro - don't get heated. This isn't a pissing match, and while you see my argument as weak, I think that may be because you are making this personal when it doesn't have to be. I don't care if Shameful Display is ruled one way or another - I am genuinely intrigued by the arguments presented here and no one posted the original ruling even though I pointed that out multiple times. Eventually I decided, since no more progress was being made here, I would send in an rules request form to find out.

I'm not sure why you don't believe my interpretation of the rules. There can be meaningful debate challenging ideas and refining arguments, and then there is simply refuting solid theory because it isn't the one you like. If Nate had said "Yes you can honor an honored character and dishonor a dishonored character with this effect" I would have accepted that, and adjusted my logical understanding of the game to suit.

I think what this ruling, and this debate crystallized is how the "game state must be changed" rule is written into the L5R LCG RR. It is not a clear ruling that an effect must change the game state but broken into roughly 2 parts. 1) an effect cannot be initiated unless it has the potential to effect the game state, and 2) that you must resolve each aspect of an effect if possible.

As it stands the final argument referencing the RR and the Card is:

We must choose 2 targets that can be either honored or dishonored.

We must simultaneously honor one of them, and dishonor the other.

There is no "may" so this effect must be resolved if possible, so you must pick an option which qualifies as "resolve" ie changed the game state. You can honor + dishonor, honor + fizz, dishonor + fizz, because these all change the game state. You cannot fizz + fizz unless no other option is available because this does not change the game state.

I legit don't understand what part of "This “resolve as much as you are able” rule basically means that you cannot optionally pick and choose which parts of an effect resolve." you don't get. This is frankly complete nonsense. You have a dev directly telling you how to interpret a line in the RR and you immediately go off into la-la land.

It just means you can't stop halfway through a sentence. It means you can't target two ordinary characters, honor one, and then stop resolving the card before you dishonor the other. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

55 minutes ago, Khift said:

I legit don't understand what part of "This “resolve as much as you are able” rule basically means that you cannot optionally pick and choose which parts of an effect resolve." you don't get. This is frankly complete nonsense. You have a dev directly telling you how to interpret a line in the RR and you immediately go off into la-la land.

It just means you can't stop halfway through a sentence. It means you can't target two ordinary characters, honor one, and then stop resolving the card before you dishonor the other. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly - you can't say "I don't do any of this because I have an honored and dishonored character." Rather it means you must resolve every aspect of the effect, meaning you have "honor one character and dishonor the other" and if you don't create a game state change out of that, you haven't resolved it.

3 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Exactly - you can't say "I don't do any of this because I have an honored and dishonored character." Rather it means you must resolve every aspect of the effect, meaning you have "honor one character and dishonor the other" and if you don't create a game state change out of that, you haven't resolved it.

Which goes against the actual ruling where you are in fact allowed to say "I don't do this because this character is already honored".

He literally tells you how to interpret it and then gives an example. It's just for not stopping mid-sentence. It has nothing to do with decisions.

3 hours ago, Khift said:

Which goes against the actual ruling where you are in fact allowed to say "I don't do this because this character is already honored".

He literally tells you how to interpret it and then gives an example. It's just for not stopping mid-sentence. It has nothing to do with decisions.

No it doesn't. You have a single effect - honor one of these characters and dishonor the other. As you've argued correctly this does not say to "select one to honor and dishonor the other" or anything like that - so you're free to apply it as you will - so long as it resolves.

The catch is that it has to resolve and honoring an honored character while dishonoring a dishonored character is not resolving. This is why that bullet point comes up. By saying you are honoring one and dishonoring the other, you are attempting to say "I choose not to do this part." If you honor an ordinary character, and fail to dishonor a dishonored character you have still resolved this as something in the game state changed. Neither part is being ignored, you are just choosing a valid resolution which - as I've said multiple times - paints part of the resolution into a corner where it is able to fail to resolve.

1 minute ago, shosuko said:

No it doesn't. You have a single effect - honor one of these characters and dishonor the other. As you've argued correct this does not say to "select one to honor and dishonor the other" or anything like that - so you're free to apply it as you will - so long as it resolves.

The catch is that it has to resolve and honoring an honored character while dishonoring a dishonored character is not resolving. This is why that bullet point comes up. By saying you are honoring one and dishonoring the other, you are attempting to say "I choose not to do this part." If you honor an ordinary character, and fail to dishonor a dishonored character you have still resolved this as something in the game state changed. Neither part is being ignored, you are just choosing a valid resolution which - as I've said multiple times - paints part of the resolution into a corner where it is able to fail to resolve.

I'm just going to requote Nate French because you don't seem to understand at all.

Quote

This “resolve as much as you are able” rule basically means that you cannot optionally pick and choose which parts of an effect resolve.
So, you could choose to dishonor the ordinary character, and let the honor effect fail to resolve in your example. Once these choices are made, you resolve as much of the effect as you are able.

That's all it means. Nothing more. Nothing less.

"Once the choices are made, you resolve as much of the effect as you are able."

That's it. That's all the rule means. Nothing more. And if the choices you made left you with being able to resolve none of it then you resolve none of it.

And the worst bit is that we wouldn't be having this conversation if you had actually posed the argument to Nate in your email instead of just blatantly seeking affirmation and wasting everybody's time. Even if Nate had held his ruling, we'd actually know why and not have this nonsense going on where you constantly prattle on and abuse the word resolve repeatedly. (And actually, having spoken to others outside of here, probably the best argument is that I was/am applying the selection rule too narrowly and that this still falls under that umbrella. I wouldn't surprise me if that were the case, although from a clarity standpoint I hate it when they clearly define a term and then use rules referencing that term as global rules but at least then it makes sense.)

4 minutes ago, Khift said:

I'm just going to requote Nate French because you don't seem to understand at all.

That's all it means. Nothing more. Nothing less.

"Once the choices are made, you resolve as much of the effect as you are able."

That's it. That's all the rule means. Nothing more. And if the choices you made left you with being able to resolve none of it then you resolve none of it.

And the worst bit is that we wouldn't be having this conversation if you had actually posed the argument to Nate in your email instead of just blatantly seeking affirmation and wasting everybody's time. Even if Nate had held his ruling, we'd actually know why and not have this nonsense going on where you constantly prattle on and abuse the word resolve repeatedly. (And actually, having spoken to others outside of here, probably the best argument is that I was/am applying the selection rule too narrowly and that this still falls under that umbrella. I wouldn't surprise me if that were the case, although from a clarity standpoint I hate it when they clearly define a term and then use rules referencing that term as global rules but at least then it makes sense.)

You aren't resolving an effect if you honor an honored character, and dishonor a dishonored character. That is exactly what that line in effect means - you can't choose to just skip it. Do you realize what you are quoting from Nate is exactly what I'm saying?

Don't bother acting as if I care about my reputation here to be some kind of suck up, trying to score political points. I could care less which way this is ruled - but no change in the argument can be made. There is no more nuance to this other than "If I target an honored and dishonored character with Shameful Display, can I honor the honored character and dishonor the dishonored one"

To which Nate replied - exactly as I have described - NO you cannot because that is not resolving it. You can honor an ordinary character, and fail to dishonor a dishonored character because you are still resolving that aspect (to honor one character and dishonor the other.) Trying to say you can honor an honored character and dishonor a dishonored character is literally like asking if you can just skip that portion - because what you are saying you can do is not resolving that aspect of the effect. If no effect has been made on the game state then that effect has failed to resolve. Something you specifically cannot choose to do.

I'm sorry you want to be sore about this, and turn it personal. I strongly advise you to become less personally connected with your own theories about game rules, and be more open to learning what the correct mechanics are.

1 hour ago, Khift said:

And if the choices you made left you with being able to resolve none of it then you resolve none of it.

Now this bit is contrary to what I understood was the official ruling up until now.

I believe it was Brad who mentioned that an action must cause a change in game state, which would make choosing something that can't resolve at all an illegal choice. However, an effect which can partially resolve (for example, dishonoring an ordinary dude, then trying to honor an already honored dude,) would be changing the game state and is thus legal, even if the honoring can't occur.

Have they changed this? The e-mail response from Nate, while not delving into that specific play, seems to mesh with (what i thought was) the ruling up until now.

29 minutes ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

Now this bit is contrary to what I understood was the official ruling up until now.

I believe it was Brad who mentioned that an action must cause a change in game state, which would make choosing something that can't resolve at all an illegal choice. However, an effect which can partially resolve (for example, dishonoring an ordinary dude, then trying to honor an already honored dude,) would be changing the game state and is thus legal, even if the honoring can't occur.

Have they changed this? The e-mail response from Nate, while not delving into that specific play, seems to mesh with (what i thought was) the ruling up until now.

That is the heart of his disagreement. Some games include an explicit line that states the game state must change. L5R does it a little differently stating that an effect must have the potential to effect the game state - and then another that says you must resolve every aspect of the effect as possible. Choices are caught up between these two. For Shameful Display you must choose 2 character who are legal targets. Legal targets are characters who can be either honored or dishonored. Since it is not specified during targeting which is which, it is not considered any deeper by the game at this point. When we go to resolve the effect we have the effect "honor one character and dishonor the other." In order to consider this resolved it has to have done something - the second point - you must carry out instructions. You can't just choose to fail resolution. Khift believes that we can simply choose to fail to resolve this effect completely - where I believe you must reach some point of resolution if possible, which can be measured by determining if it has effected the game state. If it has not effected the game state, then I believe you cannot consider it to have resolved - which brings us to the Effect bullet 2 telling us we must resolve it.

What they may need to do - if people persist in spreading the belief you can simply do nothing with an action - is add that explicit line back into the rules. I don't think its needed, and believe the logical conclusion examining the cards and rules is what we've reached, but if it helps players understand the game then I'm okay with it. I was not surprised by either of Nate's rulings on this but I've played a lot of games, and dissected a lot of rule books. Sometimes rules are wrong in design or intent, and need to be changed. I don't think this is one of those.